During the committee's discussion of N.D.R.Ev 604 (Interpreters) at the April and
September meetings, the issue of the state's interpreter statutes was brought up. By the end
of the September discussion, it was the consensus of the committee that N.D.C.C.
§§
31-01-11 and 31-01-12 were outmoded and should be superseded.

Examination of N.D.R.Crim.P. 28 and N.D.R.Ct. 6.10 show that some steps have already
been taken to supersede these statutes. Rule 28 supersedes § 31-01-12, the fee statute,
"for criminal process only." Rule 6.10 supersedes the part of § 31-01-11 that refers to
the oath or affirmation of an interpreter. The drafters of N.D.R.Civ.P. 43, on the other hand,
decided not to include the federal language on interpreters in the rule because it was "not
needed in these rules, as it is adequately covered in N.D.C.C. § 31-01-11."

Proposed amendments to Rule 43, Rule 28 and Rule 6.10 are attached. Under the proposed
amendments, N.D.C.C. §§ 31-01-11 and 31-01-12 would be wholly superseded.

The main textual change proposed to the rules would be adding a section on interpreters,
based on the federal language, to Rule 43. The proposal would also amend the explanatory
notes of Rules 28 and 6.10 to update cross references and reflect the superseding
of §§ 31-01-11 and 31-01-12. N.D.Sup.Ct.Admin.R. 50, a copy of which is
attached, provides guidance on interpreter qualifications and requirements and it would also
be cross-referenced as part of the proposed rule amendments.

The first part of N.D.C.C. § 31-01-11, which has not been superseded before,
provides:

When a witness does not understand the English language or speak the English
language,
or is deaf or unable to talk, an interpreter must be sworn to interpret for the witness.
Any person who is a qualified interpreter may be subpoenaed by any court or judge
to appear before such court or judge to act as an interpreter in any action or
proceeding. The subpoena must be served and returned in like manner as a subpoena
for a witness. Any person so subpoenaed who fails to attend at the time and place
named in the subpoena is guilty of contempt.

The committee may wish to discuss whether it would be useful to include any of this
language in the proposed rule amendments or whether Rules 43, 28 and 6.10 as amended,
along with Admin. Rule 50, adequately cover the field.